In our ITSM tool, we have a concept called Quality Codes. These quality codes can be given to anyone who participates in the restoration of a specific incident, but fails to correctly execute their responsibilities. For example, If the service desk opened an incident and failed to throughly perform all troubleshooting steps, and the person that the incident was escalated to realizes the service desk failed to accurately execute their 1st level troubleshooting responsibilities, the 2nd level person can assign a quality code to that person.

Does anyone else use a service desk tool that has this concept of a quality code? If so, what is this concept called in your tool? i dont think there is an ITIL term for this concept.

How is the quality of the entries managed? Do second line staff have a proper procedure to follow when they use this facility?

Does it serve a useful purpose?

How does the second line person know sufficient about the circumstances to form a judgement?

Isn't this really something for incident review to deal with?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding because it sounds weirdly nonsensical to me.

It is one thing to note that an opportunity may have been missed, but entirely another to attribute blame._________________"Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718

If basic stuff is getting missed off the records or not done to the extent that you need a set of codes to describe it, then you don't have much of a viable management system to start with. At that level it should be so much an aberration that it just gets dealt with.

The only exception I might countenance is the first week/month of start-up in a big-bang approach, but even there it would be better at the pilot stage.

What really bugs me about it is that it encourages confrontation and silos instead of co-operation and integration._________________"Method goes far to prevent trouble in business: for it makes the task easy, hinders confusion, saves abundance of time, and instructs those that have business depending, both what to do and what to hope."
William Penn 1644-1718

If basic stuff is getting missed off the records or not done to the extent that you need a set of codes to describe it, then you don't have much of a viable management system to start with. At that level it should be so much an aberration that it just gets dealt with.

The only exception I might countenance is the first week/month of start-up in a big-bang approach, but even there it would be better at the pilot stage.

What really bugs me about it is that it encourages confrontation and silos instead of co-operation and integration.

That's a negative way of looking at it - what about providing confirmation of adherence and identifying opportunities for improvement.

Almost everyone in a service provision is subject to CSAT assessments these days

Q
Does anyone else use a service desk tool that has this concept of a quality code?
A
I have seen at least 12 Service Desks in different IT organizations very closely. I am afraid but I have not seen this type of Quality Codes. It will not be fare, letting 2nd level person to gauge 1st level person based on one incident. However if it is trend, it needs serious attention. Incident Manager (or Service Quality Assurance person wherever affordable) should analyze the set of incidents and the quality of the information captured therein.

Q
If so, what is this concept called in your tool? i dont think there is an ITIL term for this concept.
A
This is not a best practice and hence it is not captured in ITIL. If your organization is benefitting from this type of immediate evaluation of work, it may be advisable to continue .
I have some observations in this concept.
1. It is assumed that 2nd level person is most qualified SME, as he/she is correct all the time.
2. If 2nd level person misjudges the case, is there any further evaluation to judge 2nd level person or his/her diagnosis?
3. If 1st level person has valid reasons to undertake diagnosis in different (may be incorrect) way, anybody listens to him/her?
4. 2nd level person can be biased over a 1st level person while giving quality codes.
5. It is not clear as to how these quality code / scores are used for overall improvement if any